Section 4 Week 4

Okay, so this week we covered a lot of topics a handfull of which I thought were REALLY interesting. The first thing that caught my eye was the idea of generative art because it has an intrinsic relative nature to it. Upon first hearing the word generative art (with some understanding) we consider computer-based and organic systems like insects or computer algorithms that create intricate paths from which we can derive patterns or what we think are recurring paths. Using these things and robotic graphing systems we can create art and then the question "is that really art?" is realized. Randomized computer graphing, interactive art that grows as you touch it or walk near it or yell at it, what makes this art? For organic systems, it almost seems like a comedy that nature plays on us; we try to map it out and predict its next moves but then it pulls a quick one, making us realize we can't replicate what it has made. Math can't define nature, nature just defines math. People see it as a concrete idea but ultimately it is just as fluid and changing as the seasons. This is the beauty and artistic nature of our computations is that they're sometimes infinitely close but at the same time, close is not right. Also one of the things I think particularly plays into this relativity is that sometimes humans like to separate themselves from these systems when we are just as natural and just as mathematical as any. I believe that when 1,000 people are in the same place, they will interact almost the same as another thousand because there is an equal probability of random variety among them and as the saying says "places change but people don't." We are as easily mapped as ants or plant growth patterns or anything else. It is for this reason that I love the generative art that Philip Galanter does as it grows as people interact and is considered random and happens while the observer interacts with it while it is somewhat predictable and deviates only a bit.
The next topic of interest is artificial intelligence. I read an article in Popular Science about artificial intelligence from a nobel laureate in the field. Somebody asked the question 'is the development of artificial intelligence the equating of human consciousness into a computer?' to which he replied, very smartly and simply, "no." He explained that a human can walk into a room ten times and feel differently and interpret the room in ten different ways while a computer entering a room simply interprets it in one. Humans have the ability to discern an actual item from its symbolic counterpart. We can ascribe meaning and emotion into a song or thing or voice or view while a machine can only interpret what has been fed into it. Even if it learns from its environment, it will never understand the feelings something can hold even if it understands further the entire knowledge base that the internet contains. And so, it is to this extent that AI can reach. Interestingly enough, Wilson reflects in his article that the artistic nature of AI is in its goal to reach into human nature and fool a human into believing that it is itself a human. Being able to hold converstaions, reflect feeling and understanding are all part of being a human and it requires researchers to look both into the limitations of machinery and the far stretches of humanity to make AI a reality.
I actually found an interesting video on youtube.com about a robot from Cornell University that is able to map out itself. First it moves and then utilizes several sensors that allows it to interpret how much pressure is applied to different areas of its body and where it is spacially to determine what it looks like and how it works. Additionally, when it is injured, it repeats the learning process to find out what is wrong with it, and how it can move without that part. When you think about it, we kind of learn in this way. We move and say and do things to test how far we can go not only in physical measures but socially. I think this a huge step in moving toward AI. This is the link to one of their vids but I can't find the original video that I watched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdDsK_t1Vs